The Problem With Hype(r) Cars

Vlad Pop
by Vlad Pop

After much anticipation, Faraday Future finally revealed its production car, the FF 91. The presentation introduced the FF 91 as “the smartest car you’ll ever drive” and described capabilities of advanced sensors, machine learning, and autonomous driving — all great buzzwords. We saw a live demonstration of the FF 91’s ability to drive itself with the “driverless valet” feature. The car successfully parked itself in a parking lot outside the reveal and we were told to “never worry about parking again.”

Except, I watched the rest of the reveal and I’m pretty worried.

Before you chalk this up to the dogpile, let me explain.

I’m not worried about the “driverless valet” feature that failed on stage — because it didn’t. The car presented on stage was running specific code for the demo, which was different from the fully functioning car we watched park itself earlier. I don’t know why, but that’s not relevant. The point is the demo code failed, not FF’s self-driving system.

The reason I’m worried is because my Ph.D. is in Human Factors and I have a history in working with automation in aviation. Specifically, I’ve worked on how humans interact with automation in commercial airline cockpits for the FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System. This article is my first transition from peer-reviewed scientific publications to editorials. Why?

Because I watched an “autonomous car” reveal that contained more jargon than meaningful automation concepts.

Because I watched a senior VP of Research & Development use the farce of dimming the lights as a cover to sneak a technician into a supposedly self-driving car.

Because I was told a car’s self-driving feature didn’t work because of steel structure in a building’s roof.

Because a PR person had to clarify that a car was using real production technology that just needed to be recalibrated.

And most of all, because Faraday Future cut all of this out of the reveal video before they uploaded the event stream.

So what’s the problem?

Well it’s been over 100 years since the first autopilot was developed in aviation and 35 years since airplanes have been capable of full automation we’d call SAE Level 5. Over these last 35 years, we’ve learned the decision to use advanced automation is guided by trust and self-confidence. In other words, my decision to use automation depends more heavily on whether I feel like it will work, rather than how reliably it actually works. I’m pretty self confident that I can park my car. I do it every day. I know that the FF 91 can probably do it, too. But do I trust that it could park itself in a seven-story concrete and steel parking garage at my work? Do other people who watched the reveal or read the articles about it trust it will? If they don’t, they’ll never buy the car to find out.

And that’s the problem.

Vlad Pop is a research scientist with a Ph.D. in Human Factors. He is a lifelong racing enthusiast and former Formula E developer using years of cockpit automation experience to ensure the future of automated driving is in good hands.

Vlad Pop
Vlad Pop

Vlad Pop is a research scientist with a Ph.D. in Human Factors. He is a lifelong racing enthusiast and former Formula E developer using years of cockpit automation experience to ensure the future of automated driving is in good hands.

More by Vlad Pop

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • Sam Hall Sam Hall on Jan 18, 2017

    If I'm reading correctly, the concern is basically that FF will, with all its hype and BS, destroy the reputation of self-driving technology before it reaches the mainstream buying public. That's a valid concern (see: GM diesel cars) but I'm not too worried about it. Electric cars have sofar survived the EV-1, BYD, Elio and a few other bad products and vaporware. Tesla has self-driving tech on the road already, and several other major manufacturers will soon follow suit. I think most people will correctly identify the problem as Faraday Future, not self-driving tech in general.

  • BigOldChryslers BigOldChryslers on Jan 18, 2017

    Some technology innovations follow a pattern where they're introduced but rejected by the market, usually because they aren't user friendly or are too expensive. Then follows a period of behind-the-scenes development where the technology is only used in niche applications and improved, then it is reintroduced commercially and finally takes-off. I wonder if autonomous vehicles will follow this pattern? Other examples: - 3D movies (remember the glasses with red/blue lenses?) - videodisc/DVD - fuel injection - cylinder deactivation (Caddy 4-6-8 engine) - electric cars

  • ToolGuy First picture: I realize that opinions vary on the height of modern trucks, but that entry door on the building is 80 inches tall and hits just below the headlights. Does anyone really believe this is reasonable?Second picture: I do not believe that is a good parking spot to be able to access the bed storage. More specifically, how do you plan to unload topsoil with the truck parked like that? Maybe you kids are taller than me.
  • ToolGuy The other day I attempted to check the engine oil in one of my old embarrassing vehicles and I guess the red shop towel I used wasn't genuine Snap-on (lots of counterfeits floating around) plus my driveway isn't completely level and long story short, the engine seized 3 minutes later.No more used cars for me, and nothing but dealer service from here on in (the journalists were right).
  • Doughboy Wow, Merc knocks it out of the park with their naming convention… again. /s
  • Doughboy I’ve seen car bras before, but never car beards. ZZ Top would be proud.
  • Bkojote Allright, actual person who knows trucks here, the article gets it a bit wrong.First off, the Maverick is not at all comparable to a Tacoma just because they're both Hybrids. Or lemme be blunt, the butch-est non-hybrid Maverick Tremor is suitable for 2/10 difficulty trails, a Trailhunter is for about 5/10 or maybe 6/10, just about the upper end of any stock vehicle you're buying from the factory. Aside from a Sasquatch Bronco or Rubicon Jeep Wrangler you're looking at something you're towing back if you want more capability (or perhaps something you /wish/ you were towing back.)Now, where the real world difference should play out is on the trail, where a lot of low speed crawling usually saps efficiency, especially when loaded to the gills. Real world MPG from a 4Runner is about 12-13mpg, So if this loaded-with-overlander-catalog Trailhunter is still pulling in the 20's - or even 18-19, that's a massive improvement.
Next